No subject

comes to play, pacemaker needs to know the state of fencing system as
well. I started to think about monitoring of that subsystem from within
RA which then sets some cluster/node attributes, but realized that this
won't help - more tight integration is needed.

And one more question/proposal about CMAN/DLM/GFS2:
now it is possible to use DLM/GFS2 on nodes without pacemaker installed.
I mean, if I configure additional node in cman but have no pacemaker
started on that node, then I'm still able to mount GFS2 on that node.
One minor problem is that rest of pacemaker cluster waits for that node
to start pacemaker too. So all clone resources are extended with one
more instance which "will never be started". On the other hand I see in
pacemaker sources, that there are two types of nodes: member and ping,
and all resource processing is done only for nodes which are members.
Would it be too hard to add one more node type, f.e. "arbiter" (it
participates in cman cluster so it influences quorum/fencing), which is
only valid for CMAN clusters and is not supposed to run any resources?
Then clones will not try to extend on that arbiter nodes, fewer
resources, less computations, cleaner 'crm status' output.

Could you please comment on this?

Thanks,
Vladislav